“No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…”

It gets worse.

Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, wanted to deny Americans their individual rights to travel by air — or obtain arms — without probable cause, without due process, and get this — without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.

You can’t challenge the proposed law’s legality… because it hasn’t got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause above in bold. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this,smiling when he announced it on TV.

This wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights evaporates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There is no valid legal argument for doing this. In fact, the arguments being used are overwhelmingly absurd. It’s preposterous even if you hate guns — it makes no sense — while undermining our entire legal system. Does that matter?

The sound bite looks good at first blush:

It’s insane to let people on the no-fly list buy guns.

But the truth burns the sound bite:

Then isn’t it insane to let people on the no-fly list travel?

And isn’t it insane to let people on the no-fly list keep all the guns they have?
(They can you know, didn’t anyone tell you that?) That’s because:

People on the no-fly list aren’t charged with anything, haven’t been convicted of anything, and can’t be locked because they haven’t violated anything.

If people on the no-fly list are that dangerous — why are they out walking around?

What’s to stop them from driving to Orlando, or taking Amtrak or a bus? (Hint: nothing.)

And don’t the TSA airport checkpoints work on these people? They work on us — or don’t they?

And how do you get on the list if you aren’t charged with anything? (It’s a secret.)

And if they’re that bad, how come the law lets them keep guns they already have?
(People added to the no-fly list can’t buy new guns but are not banned from guns in any other way.)

The public is being lied to, to its face, or these politicians really really don’t get it. Which is worse?

But the real truth is too deep for most people today, and is grounds to have politicians removed from office:

Politicians want to give central government the power to take people’s rights away by writing your names on a list. Their justification: “The muslims made me do it!”

and of course —

Where do they find any legitimate delegated authority to remove a person’s rights like this, and how do they expect to get away with it? They cannot.

The democrats’ dream scheme gives broad discretion to “proper authorities” to decide if you can buy a gun. The conditions are spelled out for many pages. Any bureaucrat could fit you into the descriptions with ease. Does this make you safer, or make you feel safer?

By coincidence, the same Justice Dept. decides if: 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list, and 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list, and 3) it’s the same Justice Dept. that controls review of the list, and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day:

“(h) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.—The judicial review under a petition for review filed under subsection (c)* shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for a claim by an individual who challenges a denial under subsection (a)(1).

* “(c) An individual… who seeks to challenge a denial… may file a petition for review and any claims related to that petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the judicial circuit in which the individual resides.”

And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied:

“(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court [your accuser] shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice.” Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.

Please pardon my constant rant, but why hasn’t the “news” media even mentioned any of this? The public is too bored with the details? They can’t understand it? Haven’t got the attention span? It isn’t important? It’s not sexy enough? We don’t need an informed republic? Constant repetition of inanity is enough? We need more time to hear about the candidates?

HERE’S WHERE IT GETS UGLY

“No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section except pursuant to a petition for review under section.”

Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn’t, hence they won’t tolerate questions. This is so much like what we endured with King George.

The absurd attempt to deny review if this thing gets enough votes is an affront to every American — blamed on the muslim jihad, guns, and rationalized for safety. Due process is removed, you are guilty before any trial, and in fact there is no trial. Constitutional rights are simply summarily suspended.

But second, look again, the sentence is incomplete, so it makes no grammatical sense. It could be used at the discretion of whoever implements it, unless or until challenged, “pursuant to a review under section.” This has no meaning. They know this. There is no review.

There are plenty of other problems of course, but do you really want to be bored? The members of Congress yelling from the floor only read the Talking Points, if that, and those don’t mention what’s actually in the bill. They just say, “Save the children,” metaphorically speaking. The media is no better, they’re just broadcasting the spitting. I’ve asked around. I had a hard time find the language myself.

No need to take my word for it.
You can read it, it’s in more-or-less English. I posted it here:HR2578

###

Alan Korwin’s website features plain-English books on state and federal gun laws for the public, and more common sense like you just read. He invites you to write to him or see his work, at GunLaws.com, where you can get his 14 books, like After You Shoot, and DVDs that help keep you safe.

We have put up with this nonsense long enough let’s rally the troops and show our concern on election day . They are supposed to work for us the PEOPLE who put them in office. If they can’t support the majority and the constitution send them PACKING. Enough of shoving their agenda down our throats when the majority flatly says NO we don’t want that, if they can’t hear us let them know on election day.

Alan,
I am a very strong 2nd Amendment supporter. I hear what you are saying. Your writing style, however, makes you sound like an angry rambling kook, and therefore greatly diminishes the potential positive impact you may have. May I suggest you use someone to proof read and style your writing in order to better convey your opinion and increase the impact. I am not objecting to the content at all. There is just a lot more room to increase the effectiveness of your message.

Any damn proposed Law that stares with “DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO DENY…” is a wide open door for abuse.
Read the proposed Law!
A person may “Petition for Review” within 60 days to the Appeals Court. Since there is no civil or criminal Case to make judgment on: what Rules will actually apply. Will you actually face your accusers who sat at a computer and arbitrarily put a check in your box and your name on the List?

The Law contains a provision that the Law itself may not be challenged on Constutional grounds in District Court. It has therefore eliminated the starting point to get to all higher Courts. This would in fact prevent all Constutional challanges and be the only issue or Law that could never rise to the Supreme Court. Tyrannical Government without lawful means of address. What legal precedence does that set for the entire Constution and Bill of Rights?

Appeals Courts normally do not allow “Discovery” because they only make judgement on what has been presented in a lower Court. In the Petition for Review, there has not been lower Court action/Case/Record. As such, full Discovery must be allowed or it is clearly judicial and procedural bias against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner’s Lawyer may review “some” or all of the CLASSIFIED MATERIAL IF THEY HAVE AN APPROPRIATE SECURITY CLEARANCE. I’ve had it and its not happening within the 60 window IF approved by the same Gov subjecting you to this Law. At least with obama freeing terrorists from gitmo there may be a few security cleared lawyers available.

If the Appeals Court orders the disclosure of classisied material and the AG’s representative objects: the material will not be disclosed. In fact, this Law LIMITS the Appeals process and the Judges/Courts ability to be fair in the execution of their sworn Duty.

This Law also requires a List be submitted to DHS containing the names of Judges who Quashed (Ruled against) the Gov in favor of the Petitioner. Why only track those Judges. What legitimate purpose could that serve?

This proposed Law creates several contradictory issues that no doubt will be the subject of additional Laws or changes to existing Law in the name of closing loopholes.

Firearms can still be purchased by persons on the List between private parties where allowed without a background check.

Does not address firearms currently in possesion or firearm ownership/Permits where required.

Does not address currently held CCW Permits.
Can “LISTED” person’s firearm property be confiscated and forfeit if no Petition for Review within 60 days or Appeal Review decision favors the Government?
Can a “LISTED” person be criminally charged for possesion of firearms?

Monday, in opposition to the bill, the Washington Times reported: “…The FBI reports there are 81,000 people on the ‘no fly list’ and only about 1,000 are Americans who ‘might’ be eligible to purchase a firearm…” do we really need another law for the 1.3% of the people on this list?” Although I have used quotes, I am paraphrasing from recollection, so I am not arguing that this is fact. I believe a commentator on a news channel repeated this yesterday. I think he was a Representative and directed a significant part of his disgust at the participants of the sit-in and the number of House Rules they were violating, with the idea that if conservatives were pulling this publicity stunt, the media would be screaming for resignations…. My point being: it does not matter that you need an attorney to explain the language that another attorney uses in an attempt to deceive, the bill is a bad one, written and supported by people who need to be reigned in by their constituency.

Your numbers are off by a factor of 10. There are 800,000 people on the list, the number of whom are citizens or permanent residents are about 10,000. Do we need another law? No, not really; obviously, the NICS system is run by the FBI, and the FBI has 3 days to review a 4473 and deny it for any number of reasons–which might include that one is on one of the many lists maintained by our government. So no, this was never about better recognition of threats to security; out of four terrorist attacks (one of which used bombs, not guns), only the San Bernardino shooters obtained their guns through a straw sale–but not because either were disqualified, as both would have easily passed background checks. but because hubby wanted to maintain a low profile.
What you have discovered is that this whole thing was a gigantic publicity stunt by the Democratic Party to boost support for Hillary Clinton and her gun ban platform. These bills never had anything to do with the Orlando shooting, that shooting merely provided an excuse.
Either that or it was a clumsy attempt to subvert the US Constitution.

They will try to circumvent the constitution any way they can, the real question is why? Are they bought by someone who wants more power? Are they secret supporters of chinese style government tactics, where they can and do “make people disappear “? Or is it just some half assed attempt at using asinine ideals to turn us and our civil rights into a social experiment? Perhaps all of the above.

The author is not an attorney, and his patently incorrect reading of the proposed law demonstrates this with utmost certainty. The first flaw is that judges are not members of the Department of Justice, and are therefore not “the accuser.” The accuser is the AG on behalf of the People (as the caption reads), the same as in any criminal case.
The second flaw is that although review is at the level of the courts of appeals, that is meaningful judicial review, and even the author concedes (although he also contradicts himself) that the constitutionality of the proposed law is reviewable by the courts of appeals–and of course by the Supreme Court. It is simply wrong to argue that there is no judicial review that “no appeals are allowed.” In fact, the proposal specifically states that no district court…or court of appeals…shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section EXCEPT PURSUANT TO A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER THIS SECTION. So if someone denied files a timely petition, the constitutionality of the section can be reviewed.
Third, discovery is typically not available in the courts of appeal, so no surprise there–but there will be an administrative record that the court can review, which will include “the information the AG relied upon in denying the transfer or application; and information the petitioner has submitted; any information deemed relevant by the United States; and any information that is exculpatory. Another point often overlooked is that the government has the burden of making a prima facie case. While it is entitled to hold back secret investigative materials (as are police departments, in many cases), it runs the risk that it will fail to carry its burden of proof if it produces no evidence at all.

So stop ranting and start reading. Or better yet, have an attorney dissect it for you. I am too tired now and am going to bed.

Mark N. are you so removed from reality that you do not see the inherent injustice in this regulation? There are many men and women who live paycheck to paycheck just to earn enough money to buy food, shelter and clothing. Some of these citizens might attempt to enforce their Second Amendment right to purchase a new gun. That may be the first time that they discover that their names have been put on a “no fly list” by a secret person for a secret reason.

Mark, are you seriously proposing that such a competent, law-abiding adult citizen take out a bank loan to hire an attorney to pursue one of his or her constitutional rights? Perhaps you believe that lawyers will take on all such cases on a pro bono basis? Will you volunteer to spend hours of legal work and then schedule court time to seek remedy for those who can’t afford to pay for legal representation? Or are you really looking at this travesty as being an opportunity to generate money charges to those unlucky enough to find themselves on a secret list for secret reasons when they try to buy a new firearm?